Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games

WP:DSGAMES

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Games: board, card, etc. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Games: board, card, etc. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Games-related deletions

$25,000 High Roller H.O.R.S.E.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this poker event in reliable sources, other than Poker News, which counts as a single source for notability purposes. This article should be redirected to World Series of Poker. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, United States of America, and Nevada. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Series of Poker per nom or delete. The size of the entry fee is irrelevant and doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadwallon (role-playing game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNG failing game from a defunct corporation. No significant coverage from searching, and has had a "no sources" tag on for 15+ years. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Confrontation (Rackham)#Cadwallon as an alternative to deletion. The reviews at RPGnet and fr:Guide du rôliste galactique seem like user reviews. --Mika1h (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AT-43

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct game that fails GNG. Has had no GNG passing sourcing for 15 years now, and searching reveals little more than fan sites wondering why the game died and is unlikely to ever be notable. Article is also an irretrievable mess of in-universe fancruft/advertising copy. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules lawyer

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simple failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY as the article only consists of a definition. A potential WP:ATD is merge to Letter and spirit of the law, but that one is more in a legal context than a gaming one, and not exactly well-sourced or stable in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. come on, this is the stuff we come to Wikipedia for. Suppose it could be merged somewhere; would support that if appropriate placement is identified. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. While you may enjoy the article, personal preference doesn't factor into AfDs, only evidence that a full article can be created based on the idea of "rules lawyering". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m satisfied what’s there shows it can. Tell me where you would merge it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Role-playing game terms seems like a better place to merge it than letter and spirit of the law given its predominant use in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it is now, although short, already has some content which would not fit into a dictionary. And a WP:BEFORE search shows that various sources dealing with table-top roleplaying games have more to say: On A Roll p. 45, The Civilized Guide to Tabletop Gaming p. 66 and The Postmodern Joy of Role-Playing Games all have about a page of content, including commentary. And the journal Analog Game Studies Vol. IV has a full essay on the topic. How can 6+ pages contain "only a definition"? So it seems to me the nomination is mostly talking about the current status of the article, which is not decisive when deciding about deletion. All that said, the first and primary paragraph could be merged in to Role-playing game terms, and later be spun out again as soon as someone uses the listed sources further. But aside from that fact that I see no advantage in that, it would already be akward to fit in the other contexts where same term may pop up, but more rarely so if the Google Books search is any indication. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analog Game Studies is a good source, the others seem like definitions or brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else. Usually one solid source is still not enough to merit a full page. Therefore I am still not "convinced", though I will admit there is a non zero amount of coverage about the concept of rules lawyering in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: The first two books (sorry, I had a wrong link there) each have a specific section dedicated to the topic, so brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else is not correct here. The third one does talk about the concept in a larger context, but has significant analysis way beyond a definition (what it means for the game, contrast to other concept,...). So is there material to expand the article beyond the length of a stub? Absolutely! Daranios (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that one paragraph into Role-playing game terms. The relevance of the "Related terms" seems very tenuous to me. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with merge, Related terms would appear to be NOTDICTIONARY. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main article content into Role-playing game terms, alongside Rule as Intended and Rule as Written which discuss two sides of the same coin. A list is a better place for this, since a standalone article is borderline WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Jtwhetten (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is sufficient to meet WP:N and we have more than just a dictionary definition. I could see a broader article on this plus related things such as RAW and RAI (as mentioned above). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between editors advocating Keep and those pushing a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus and would rather not close this as No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous keep posts. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Role-playing game terms per ClaudineChionh and Jtwhetten. The WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument is valid here, and there's also no sense in creating a bunch of stubs for something that can be adequately covered in a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesiMoore (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VTES 3rd Edition

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outside MtG, individual sets of CCGs are almost never notable, and I don't see why this should be an exception. Maybe merge the mention of awards to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle if it is not there and redirect this per WP:ATD-R? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any opinion on the suggestion to Merge this content to a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of determining consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion